Interest: orthodox have the technique, and heterodox have the rhetoric – 02/20/2023 – Joel Pinheiro da Fonseca

One aspect of the discussion on the Central Bank’s interest rate recalls, in its configuration, the discussion between Anvisa, the Butantan Institute and the anti-vaccination groups: one side bets on technical rigor, the other on political rhetoric.

First, the important difference: the vaccine discussion had, on one side, scientists; on the other, purely and simply, a fake news and disinformation campaign carried out by propagandists.

The debate on interest rates opposes a dominant, orthodox side of contemporary economic science to another, heterodox one, which, although marginal in the global economic debate, also represents a group with researchers and academic publications.

It so happens that, like the anti-vaccine activists in 2021, the heterodox side of the economic debate seems to have chosen to hold the discussion only in the public arena, seeking to persuade lay people, not experts.

Narratives, stories that make sense of the issues being debated, are a necessary part of our understanding of the world. A greedy pharmaceutical industry that wants to profit by deceiving families with dangerous and unnecessary vaccines; an elite of bankers who want to keep interest rates high at all costs to make more money, even if it hurts the bulk of the population. They are simple narratives with clear popular appeal. Who doesn’t like to feel like they’re in a just war against a powerful villain?

But the Central Bank has a model to base its decision on Selic. This model can be criticized, as well as alternative models can be proposed, but to hold this type of discussion it is necessary to face the technical side of the issue. Present a model, point out flaws in the current one, carry out rigorous empirical tests to find out which one is closest to reality. And that just hasn’t been done so far.

Despite their bluster against the vaccine, none of the critics had a scholarly paper showing its alleged dangers. It was all at the level of casual observation and conspiracy theory. There is something profoundly dishonest about criticism of a technical issue that immediately goes to popular persuasion and refuses to engage in real scientific debate. This goes for both those who questioned the vaccine and those who question BC policy.

Rhetoric is not a bad thing, it is not a tool to deceive the public, although it can have that role. Rather, it is the ability to communicate something in a way that makes sense and persuades the listener. In a democracy, this work of public persuasion is essential, because public opinion influences society’s decisions.

The liberal democracy of voting is consolidated, but remained for decades with the population only having a voice when voting. Only now are we experiencing, with the networks, a democratization of public debate as well. And this requires, on the part of specialists, an additional effort to make themselves understood.

The technicians’ work depends on countless decisions, and laypeople —including the political class here—, and more than ever them, insist on participating in the debate. The “expert” wallet has less and less power to end a discussion.

For this reason, I consider Roberto Campos Neto’s decision to grant an interview to Roda Viva. Seeing economists engaged in this work of clarifying — and convincing — the public, always seeking to approach a language accessible to lay people, is also a positive side effect of this discussion conducted in such a wrong way by the government.

PRESENT LINK: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release five free hits of any link per day. Just click the blue F below.